Your reviewer Ian Freer must have been sipping happy juice or something because there is no way that this is a five star film. Forrest Gump 2 - that about sums it up. Nearly three hours of corny, slushy, sentimental mush that some people seem to love wallowing in. I was looking at my watch after the first hour. After the second, I was looking at the exits. The only reason this film seems to have been made is so that the director can try out the latest computer technology....or perhaps he thought he could win win an oscar....by far the worst film that David Fincher has directed. I'm fed up of watching Oscar bait. For god's sake bring on the Watchmen!!!

Your reviewer Ian Freer must have been sipping happy juice or something because there is no way that this is a five star film. Forrest Gump 2 - that about sums it up. Nearly three hours of corny, slushy, sentimental mush that some people seem to love wallowing in. I was looking at my watch after the first hour. After the second, I was looking at the exits. The only reason this film seems to have been made is so that the director can try out the latest computer technology....or perhaps he thought he could win win an oscar....by far the worst film that David Fincher has directed. I'm fed up of watching Oscar bait. For god's sake bring on the Watchmen!!!

Tedious, overlong and uninvolving. By far the biggest disappointment I've seen for a while. The concept of a man aging in reverse is interesting and ripe with potential. The trailers made the film look like it would be a bittersweet love story but I couldn't understand at all why Benjamin was interested in Daisy or her in him. Forgettable in the extreme.

With 13 nominations at this year's oscar awards, the film was clearly going to be a good one. It is. In my opinion this is not David Fincher's best, it can't be when it's up against Fight Club. However it's so good to see this director trying out different genre's. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are brilliant withthe former's subtle character being played with real conviction. A excellent fil no doubt. But a classic can only be determined after more watches.

I'd like to applaud Lex Romero's earlier review. I share your same sentiments (very eloquently put by the way) and I'll probably end up repeating some in the following rant.

The (Not So) Curious Case of Benjamin Boredom

Oh dear.

A film that left me with an enormous feeling of disappointment and dare I say it, fatigue from the sheer boredom. Under the banner of David Fincher I expected a lot more from this... on the other hand Eric Roth's screenplay totally lived up to expectation. Sorry Wilbert, but Roth lifts ideas wholesale from Forrest Gump and makes the same mistakes a second time. On reflection, Fincher can be exempt from criticism - he performs solid work behind the camera as he's done in the past and his technical prowess is again demonstrated here. The VIPER FilmStream produces some stunning image clarity, resulting in the film looking remarkable and equalling the photography in Zodiac). I can admire it on a technical level, but that's all I can muster up - slight admiration, because the writing really is atrocious.

Roth's script is weak, lazy and deeply flawed. If there's another thing Fincher does right, it's keeping the sentimentality and schmaltz down to an acceptable level. It does bubble to the surface occasionally, but it's nowhere near Gumpesque and I give Fincher full credit for that.

Okay, so what's wrong with it and why did I leave feeling so letdown. The pace of the narrative. Every time the Daisy hospital scene appears the film stops dead. It's fine to bookend the story with such a scene, but to interject every 15 minutes or so? Whatever narrative momentum that was created earlier comes to a halt, and this happens again and again and again. Not to mention Blanchett's death bed moaning is like listening to nails on chalkboard. Julia Ormond's character has little reason to exist, other than to act as a plot device and respond to a very predictable revelation later on. Not for a second did I buy the romance between Benjamin and Daisy. They simply had no chemistry. I'm mystified as to why their love was 'timeless' and why they kept coming back to each other. Why and how did they connect in the first place? What was it that joined their fates together other than blatant plot contrivances? I can accept 12 year-old Daisy and Benjamin had some connection because they were the same mental age, in an environment of older people (not sure I'd call it "chemistry" as such).

Benjamin Button himself. Jesus, what a dull and passive protagonist. What are his motivations? What are his goals? What are his objectives in life? None of these questions are answered, at least not substantially. I've heard descriptions of him being "a wise character', how was he wise? Did he show this? Ultimately he came across as a vapid human being, slightly idiotic, who was led into situations by others. He did make one decision by himself, the decision to abandon his wife and newborn child. How noble of him, and how convenient for Roth to avoid exploring the thought-provoking predicament of a man raising his child while reverting to a child himself. However, on the flipside, it's a shame his trip to India was so rushed. The montage consisted of footage shot by Tarsem (of The Fall fame) and could have been the pivotal sequence of the film. Instead the pace suddenly picks up and this is skipped over. Why is it nobody tried to exploit Benjamin for his curious and strange condition? Why did he never attend school? Why did he never try to connect with other children his age? The social and psychological ramifications were not really explored, and if they were, the results would've been considerably more interesting.

The purpose of Elias Koteas' blind clockmaker? I have no idea. What was his relation to the rest of the story? The sequence seemed entirely superfluous and a bit baffling. It's not as if the clock that ran backwards had a magical effect on Benjamin. So why even include that segment? As a tangible symbol to aging backwards? What about Benjamin, isn't he big enough of a symbol? On a final note, Benjamin may have looked old (thanks to CG modelling that becomes a distraction), but inside, he was just like everyone else. Young and getting older as the years went by. His "condition" or however you'd define it had no bearing on his wisdom or how he viewed the world. It not offer him or the audience any real insight about life/death that we haven't heard a million times before.

_____________________________

ďAll the scheming and plotting in the world won't result in something lasting, transcendent. Anything that's authentic, that's real, comes in the form of a gift. Even if by accident.Ē~ Josť Saramago ~

Thanks for the compliment and I'm glad someone else has a similar opinion. I came out of the cinema with 8 other people and there was only 2 of us with a negative opinion of the film.

I'm still baffled as to the people who can feel any emotional connection for benjamin or for his and Daisy's romance. It just wasn't there. Perhaps some people have become too drenched in rom coms? And seeing a montage of the couple in their house happy together, some people will automatically link that to "ah yes, they're in love!".

As for the blind clockmaker. I believe it was meant to be a parrallel for Button. He wanted to make a clock that ran back so he could bring his son back. Button's dad made a son who's clock 'ran backwards' and rejected him for it, a small irony. But as you say, baffling and unecessary, it's completely unexplored and says...nothing.

Thanks for the compliment and I'm glad someone else has a similar opinion.† I came out of the cinema with 8 other people and there was only 2 of us with a negative opinion of the film.

I'm still baffled as to the people who can feel any emotional connection for benjamin or for his and Daisy's romance.† It just wasn't there.† Perhaps some people have become too drenched in rom coms?† And seeing a montage of the couple in their house happy together, some people will automatically link that to "ah yes, they're in love!".†

As for the blind clockmaker.† I believe it was meant to be a parrallel for Button.† He wanted to make a clock that ran back so he could bring his son back.† Button's dad made a son who's clock 'ran backwards' and rejected him for it, a small irony.† But as you say, baffling and unecessary, it's completely unexplored and says...nothing.†

Yes, I grasped the Button parallel. It just seemed like pointless symbolism to me, though the backwards WW1 battlefield looked cool. Perfect trailer material!

I forgot to comment on how the film discreetly builds up to Button's James Dean/Marlon Brando period. You just know it's the tentpole act, with Pitt looking psychically perfect riding around on his Harley. I could sense all male audience members rolling their eyes at that point.

_____________________________

ďAll the scheming and plotting in the world won't result in something lasting, transcendent. Anything that's authentic, that's real, comes in the form of a gift. Even if by accident.Ē~ Josť Saramago ~

Haha, oh god that was terrrible as well because we barely saw any of it! Just got him on his motorbike in a leather jacket. That was it. Nothing else to say about the period or Button. It just cut away to something else.

My own experience of this film was that it was warm, enjoyable but ultimately unengaging and overlong. Elements of other films, such as The English Patient and more obviously Titanic(elderly woman remembers) and Forrest Gump left me wondering what all the fuss was about. While the actors, especially Pitt, acquit themselves very well, the film struck me as a collection of episodes, some of which were very disjointed. The purpose of Benjamin's father was never clear beyond allowing him to develop yet another plot line. Benjamin's ability to leap from one part of the story to the next was strongly reminiscent of Forrest Gump. The problem with a story of this type is that much of it is telegraphed , even before the story is created. In this respect the challenge was to avoid this. In this I think Fincher and Roth failed.

I also failed to see the need to use Hurricane Katrina as a backdrop, yet again echoes of the connections of Gump to important historical events, and I think it was a distraction more than a useful device, although it was not helped by Cate Blanchett's mumbling. Granted I don't have as exalted a view of Fincher as the Empire reviewer or others may have. I have also never been a fan of Fight Club in any way. In that respect I took the film for what I saw. Good? Better than most but really not THAT good. At most 3/5

When I heard people discussing this film almost every single one of them commented on the length of the film saying "it's way too long". Honestly, I didn't feel it whatsoever. Fantastic film and well deserving of its Oscar nomination. If a film just shy of three hours can hold my attention for its entirety then it is surely deserving of an award.

I really liked this film, it was touching, had good (not great) performances and felt like an epic. The effects were really good, especially when showing youth. However, this film follows the exact pattern of events as Forrest Gump (I think it's the same screenwriter isn't it?): different from everyone else, learning to walk, going away to war, loving the same girl all his life, relatively sad ending. It's a good film but not as original as it wants to be but the interesting direction from Fincher makes it well worth the long, bum-numbing running time.

Very disappointed. Forrest Gump said "You never know what you're gonna get". With BB it's "You never know what's coming." Except you do, every single step of the way, and the film totally wimps out by not portraying the later (earlier?) stages of BB's life that would have given the film to be a proper Fincher film, one that would balance out the corny sentiment with a real edginess.

Instead, Button says very obvious things, very slowly, squanders it's principle gimmick by not exploring it in proper depth (say, as an allegory for alzheimers, which is what BB's decline could have been like).

A film has to be astounding to get away with the 'I could die any moment, but instead of me telling you something I want you to know, please read this cryptic diary aloud' storytelling device and while are many technical reasons to make BB worth seeing, it's pure corn as a story and perhaps neutered itself from any real, genuine emotional engagement with the themes and characters by going for 12 certificate territory, instead of going the distance with the available material (a bit like Scorcese's approach to The Aviator, another film that could have gone the distance with its material, which the director in question was known for doing, yet the film is very superficial and safely a 12).

Perhaps if someone thought to trust David Lynch with BB we'd have got the best of his genius for being able to be narratively direct when it matters, to convey genuine emotion without going OTT and tgo be elusively hypnotic for the film's benefit (see Elephant Man, and Straight Story).

Forrest Gump 2 about sums up BB, and given the pedigree of the personnel involved, the technical stuff was always gonna pass muster. But BB has no big point to make, relies on people just going 'ooh, he ages backwards,cool!!!' and assumes the audience will care without giving any real feeling people for us to care about.

However, I did wish the story was told from the POV of the man who kept getting struck by lightning, rather than being based on the 'I'm dying, read my diary beofre I snuff it' story telling device which continually kicked the film in the Buttons.

So I'll just imagine what the film could have been if narrated by the lucky indestructible bastard, encountering something equally bizarre (BB's condition) at various stages of his life (ie the 'striking' moments being used as something to build the dramatic structure around, more definitvely than is already the case), with the love story then being expected to carry less of the weight of the film, and (ironically) being more engaging by being alluded to and not focused on as the thrust of the narrative, which forced it into 'deathbed confession storytelling' of the most obvious kind.

As a big fan of Fincher I was anticipating this, however haeve nothing but disappointment after seeing it.

Visually of course the film is stunning, not only the ageing effects (which only at times look slightly off), the way each decade manages to Ďlookí like it was filmed at that time, the cinematography really needs to be applauded. However these achievements donít hide a lousy script, which is clearly the most problematic aspect. The gump comparisons baffled me when I first heard them, as I have only just watched BB, but now I completely understand how apt they are. Not only was it written by the same bloke (Eric Roth) but he insists on inserting pointless quirks that go nowhere, but are suppose to be profound I guess, also the necessity to conextualise in American history is, so you get BB stepfather talking about how he knew the chap that killed Abraham Lincoln (so what?), you get that chap recollected about being struck by lightening, and what the flip is it with that silly hummingbird.

Granted the film is a fantastical telling but the sporadic appearance of that bird after the death of the sea captain and when Daisy was close to death just seemed like the most clumsy device the writer could think of to link the narrative. Like Gump, you get this romantic notion of the southern drawl but at times it becomes a parody of itself specially when people say things like Ď you gonna cut yourself to ribbons girlí, it feels like a bad impersonation of the accent/sematic expression of southern types. Also was it just me or was Cate Blanchet IMPOSSIBLE to understand on her deathbed? I know youíre dying love but I canít understand a word youíre saying.

Also after reading the short story by Fitzgerald which admittedly isnít that great, the concept is the most intriguing element, there are some potentially cinematic scenes when BB gets denied by Harvard for looking too old but goes to Yale instead and then plays football against them, scoring all the points thanks to his new found youthful energy. That would of been interesting to see, but it seems Eric Roth has loosely interpreted the whole thing to revist the same things he wrote about in Gump.

Oh well, a waisted opportunity I guess, lets hope Fincher returns to form with whatever he does next...hopefully Torso!

Synopsis Born with unusual circumstances, Benjamin Button (Pitt), who is a man who ages backwards, goes into many events through his life, including his love with Daisy (Blanchett).

Review Fourteen years ago, screenwriter Eric Roth won an Oscar for his wonderful adapted screenplay of Winston Greenís novel Forrest Gump, in which an unintelligent person with good intentions accidentally goes through many historic moments in America, yet would always return to his true love. Though Benjamin Button is based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the screen story follows the same structure from Robert Zemeckisí film.

Just like Gump, it is a fable in the form of a biography, yet because of its protagonist, the story is told through a fantasy perspective at American history, thanks to David Fincherís visual direction. If you have seen Zemeckisí film, you will notice several references through out Fincherís flick, most obviously the unusual male figure falling in love at first sight with the sweetest angel.

However, the film succeeds at being its own kind, clearly because of the characterisation of Benjamin Button. While Forrest Gump doesnít have the intelligence to understand the bigger picture, Button rejects it as he wishes to live life in its most simple form, despite his bizarre aging. He wants to be with Daisy, but at times she is wild and self-absorbed and wants to live in a much adventurous world. But always, she comes to her senses.

Through out David Fincherís work, it is obvious that he makes technical achievements, with thrillers like Se7en and surreal dramas like Fight Club. Though this is not his best film in a narrative point of view, this is his best in a technical standpoint. Fincher has beautifully recreated the various periods and cities, along with a hint of fantasy dipped in.

In the first half of the film, we see Brad Pitt as a wrinkled individual. With great make-up and visual effects, they are some of the most impressive moments in the effects world, yet it still concentrates on the story. As he gets younger, we do get to see the Brad Pitt we are all familiar with, but his performance still convinces us that he is still Benjamin.

Cate Blanchett does play the typical girl-next-door who falls into harsh events, yet through her aging, she succeeds at being a tragic character who realises she canít be with the love of her life forever. The other stand-out supporter is Taraji P. Hanson as Queenie who takes care of Benjamin as she brings both strength and sweetness towards her adoptive son that becomes emotional.

Verdict Fincherís best film since Fight Club. Despite the references from Forrest Gump, this masterpiece successfully becomes its own fable.

When I heard people discussing this film almost every single one of them commented on the length of the film saying "it's way too long". Honestly, I didn't feel it whatsoever. Fantastic film and well deserving of its Oscar nomination. If a film just shy of three hours can hold my attention for its entirety then it is surely deserving of an award.

Highly recommended.

I have to agree. at just under three i never checked my watch once nor felt the need to. i enjoyed it.

My own experience of this film was that it was warm, enjoyable but ultimately unengaging and overlong. Elements of other films, such as The English Patient and more obviously Titanic(elderly woman remembers) and Forrest Gump left me wondering what all the fuss was about. While the actors, especially Pitt, acquit themselves very well, the film struck me as a collection of episodes, some of which were very disjointed. The purpose of Benjamin's father was never clear beyond allowing him to develop yet another plot line. Benjamin's ability to leap from one part of the story to the next was strongly reminiscent of Forrest Gump. The problem with a story of this type is that much of it is telegraphed , even before the story is created. In this respect the challenge was to avoid this. In this I think Fincher and Roth failed.

I also failed to see the need to use Hurricane Katrina as a backdrop, yet again echoes of the connections of Gump to important historical events, and I think it was a distraction more than a useful device, although it was not helped by Cate Blanchett's mumbling. Granted I don't have as exalted a view of Fincher as the Empire reviewer or others may have. I have also never been a fan of Fight Club in any way. In that respect I took the film for what I saw. Good? Better than most but really not THAT good. At most 3/5

SPOILERS!

Both Benjamin and Daisy met their deaths at the hands of counter-clockwise rotation. For Benjamin it was his reversed biological clock, and for Daisy it was Hurricane Katrina. There's a symbolic link between the two, and it's all strangely romantic.

My own experience of this film was that it was warm, enjoyable but ultimately unengaging and overlong. Elements of other films, such as The English Patient and more obviously Titanic(elderly woman remembers) and Forrest Gump left me wondering what all the fuss was about. While the actors, especially Pitt, acquit themselves very well, the film struck me as a collection of episodes, some of which were very disjointed. The purpose of Benjamin's father was never clear beyond allowing him to develop yet another plot line. Benjamin's ability to leap from one part of the story to the next was strongly reminiscent of Forrest Gump. The problem with a story of this type is that much of it is telegraphed , even before the story is created. In this respect the challenge was to avoid this. In this I think Fincher and Roth failed.

I also failed to see the need to use Hurricane Katrina as a backdrop, yet again echoes of the connections of Gump to important historical events, and I think it was a distraction more than a useful device, although it was not helped by Cate Blanchett's mumbling. Granted I don't have as exalted a view of Fincher as the Empire reviewer or others may have. I have also never been a fan of Fight Club in any way. In that respect I took the film for what I saw. Good? Better than most but really not THAT good. At most 3/5

SPOILERS!

Both Benjamin and Daisy met their deaths at the hands of counter-clockwise rotation. For Benjamin it was his reversed biological clock, and for Daisy it was Hurricane Katrina. There's a symbolic link between the two, and it's all strangely romantic.

SPOILERS

She dies in a hospital bed, not blown away by a hurricane, and they both die of old age

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

3D moving images are not films, they're holograms, and should be treated as a separate medium of storytelling, or artform.

the Curios Case of Benjamin button is a masterpiece of filmmaking up there with slumdog as the two amazing films to be released early 2009. first of all Brad Pitt is fantastic in the lead role aided with groundbreaking and breathtaking special effects with an unusual yet gripping story with a fantastic script and direction by david fincher. i cannot rate this film highly enough and at 2 hrs 40 mins it flies by andi was fully engrossed in this mans life tale

...with a bunch of characters nobody cares about very much. Why is the love of his life so cold and unpleasant? There's a smashing cameo from Tilda Swinton, which turned out to be the highlight of the movie by a long, long way. It was so long we nearly gave up and left - when we should have been riveted.

...with a bunch of characters nobody cares about very much. Why is the love of his life so cold and unpleasant? There's a smashing cameo from Tilda Swinton, which turned out to be the highlight of the movie by a long, long way. It was so long we nearly gave up and left - when we should have been riveted.

To cut a long 3 hour story short, nothing happens in this film at all. A bloke gets younger, a woman gets older and in the end you hope both die so you can go home. I don't think I've ever seen anything so bad. It is totally emotionless. No one came out the cinema with tears in their eyes. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchet give similarly emotionless performances as arnie as TheTerminator. Are they robots sent back in time to bore us to death?

After several long months of Fight Club dominating my Top 5 list, a film has finally come along that not only begs instant status as my favourite film of all time, but that does so in strides. Every second of the film is measured and weighed perfectly, every line of dialogue written and delivered to perfection. One of many aspects of the film that impress me is the seemingly effortless change of tone and pace. One moment, we're being captivated by subtle exchanges between Pitt and Blanchett, or the heartbreakingly brief affair of Pitt and Swinton, the next, we're thrown head-first into an explosive sea battle that catches the audience completely unawares, not just because of the breathtaking effects and the beautiful way it was pieced together, but because of how well we know the characters, in particular Button. We've been on a journey through a small segment of a life, seen his deeply intense relationship with Daisy, seen him have his heart broken, and unlike action films, where the lead is typically a gargantuan, emotionless buffoon, we see a fragile, down-to-earth man plunged into the real horrors of the war, in a battle that lasts less than five minutes, and yet makes the audience feel something that the typical Hollywood action-blockbuster simply can't produce: We fear for Button. The entire film is fraught with heart-rending stories, each character seeming real and 3D. In summary, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a flawless piece of cinematography, that plays the very strings of your heart with every second you watch. It truly is a film that is capable of inducing every emotion known to man, and it does it with intrigue and an absorbing storyline. It has all the ingredients of the perfect film, in theory and, without a doubt, in essence.